寄托家园留学论坛

标题: issue17 本意求新但例子证明手法颇有争议听听大家意见感激~~~ [打印本页]

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-7-16 21:44:38 标题: issue17 本意求新但例子证明手法颇有争议听听大家意见感激~~~

本帖最后由 doraliu 于 2010-7-16 21:49 编辑

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more important, to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Born in a democracy society, we have been rather familiar with laws; laws regulate our daily life, put things in order so that our life are not in chaos; laws are usually derived into categories as contract law，property law, administrative law and so on, but never have I ever seen laws to be divided into just and unjust; if we have to divided it in to just and unjust, then we have to have the definition of what is justice and injustice, which is such a philosophy issue that even Aristotle cannot give us a simple answer; even if we have a clear, simple way of determining justice and injustice, it is ridiculous that the manifest injustice still exist in our democracy society without being eliminated. Even if injustice exist because of the whole blindness of entire society, it is very dangerous to assert that we should disobey and resist “unjust” laws.

First and foremost, it is rather difficult to identify just and unjust, if not impossible. Justice is a rather complex philosophical conception concerns itself with moral, ethics, religion, politics; the different opinions concerning about Tibet can illustrate my opinion. It is believed by westerns that Tibet is an independent country and china has been invading its sovereignty, that china has been suppressing Tibet militarily, economically and culturally; infrastructure construction, subsides, priority in education and so on are the government’s conspiracy of strengthen its grip in the region; apparently china holds a completely different opinion, in its opinion, Tibet is part of its territory since Tang dynasty; it is just trying to liberate its minority people from poverty through development and necessary suppression；what happened between majority Han and minority Tibet is a inner country issue which should not be interfered by outsiders. So who is right? Is there any right answers?
when we form our opinions, decide what is just and unjust ,the education we received, the experiences that made us who we are, the political position, religious attitude all are related, and they are so different when different persons are concerned; and I guess I am rather safe to say that there is no definitely just and unjust exist.

Secondly, on the contrary to the ambiguous conception about just and unjust, at least as I am concerned, there is no negotiation about obeying or disobeying the law. Laws are created to be obeyed so that the society would not surrender to a totally chaos; imagine what would happen if people are entitled to disobey laws because they think they are unfair. For example, the poor workers might assume that it is unfair that they are working hard and it is the rich—the owner of the factory who reap their fruits and become richer, and if they are entitled to resist this unfair, they could rob, steal wealth form the rich, instead of working hard to climb up the ladder to become rich; there are still more poorer people, they just do the same and rob the poor; and rich become poor because they are robbed, so they also rob the people who have robbed them; the whole society is robbing; Seem to be ridiculous? Of course I am exaggerating. But it happened, in china, in the middle of 19th century, though not exactly the same, but similar and horrible. During that period, the illiterate believed the educated people were evil in stealing the triumph of revolution; that they were trying to subversion communism; that was a period of brutal suppression of educated by illiterate, of upper class by boors; famous writers were tortured to death so there were no origination; demographist killed and resulted in an ever populated country thus enormous social problems; scientists were suspended so that there were no science progress achieved. Laws are rules, there is no fair or unfair about regulations; only when people are concerned, there exist fair or unfair, and disobeying the law, is unfair, unjust.

In sum, I would like to paraphrase the quote of Hegel what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational that totally injustice does not exist, what exist has its opponent of just; and I would like to emphasize that it is our obligation to obey the laws.

作者: 一米距离 时间: 2010-7-16 23:04:25

我是觉得说西藏的例子不太好吧。
还有我觉得好像过于偏向一边了。totally injustice does not exist??
but i should say u r fluent in english. keep on

作者: lingli_xiaoai 时间: 2010-7-17 00:14:43

本帖最后由 lingli_xiaoai 于 2010-7-17 01:06 编辑

you assay's examples, themselves are controversial. One feeling I have with your assay maybe irrelevant with the question you're asking but I still want to point out is- your assay show more emotion than logic.

Seem to be ridiculous? Of course I am exaggerating.

things like that... it would make a good speech, but not good assay, what the impression you want to show the rater is not how strong emotion/passion you have towards the topic, but you ability to analysis, to reason...not story-telling...don't exaggerate anything if you don't have to..including the way you put your examples. if you put your example in an irrational way, it would weaken your argument instead of supporting it. ( For example, the poor workers might assume that it is unfair that they are working hard and it is the rich—the owner of the factory who reap their fruits and become richer, and if they are entitled to resist this unfair, they could rob, steal wealth form the rich, instead of working hard to climb up the ladder to become rich; there are still more poorer people, they just do the same and rob the poor; and rich become poor because they are robbed, so they also rob the people who have robbed them; the whole society is robbing) it was an example that your spending too much energy or words on examples even not real example but just things happened in your head...

During that period, the illiterate believed the educated people were evil in stealing the triumph of revolution; that they were trying to subversion communism; that was a period of brutal suppression of educated by illiterate, of upper class by boors; famous writers were tortured to death so there were no origination; demographist killed and resulted in an ever populated country thus enormous social problems; scientists were suspended so that there were no science progress achieved. Laws are rules, there is no fair or unfair about regulations; only when people are concerned, there exist fair or unfair, and disobeying the law, is unfair, unjust

are you talking about cultural revolutions? those sentence simplified the whole event into an extent it is not even true anymore...
moreover, it is irrelevant about the law.....if one has no idea of what culture revolution is all about, they will think those people were just resentful to the society or educated people...how this can be linked with disobey the law when they think it is unjust?

作者: hyacinth 时间: 2010-7-17 01:06:52

it is rather difficult to identify just and unjust

-_-b

---------------------
to be honest, i dont feel like your essay is original... instead, it sounds to me like you dont know what to be written for an issue, how to use examples and you dont know how to reason...

i m sorry it might hurt your feelings, and i would suggest do not try this in real test. it's way too risky.

when we form our opinions, decide what is just and unjust ,the education we received, the experiences that made us who we are, the political position, religious attitude all are related, and they are so different when different persons are concerned; and I guess I am rather safe to say that there is no definitely just and unjust exist.

this is a good point actually...
but when you reason or make a point, try to avoid using exaggeration and your own assumptions which will weaken your arguments...

BTW sentence like this

but never have I ever seen laws to be divided into just and unjust;

sounds ignorant and arrogant... it will impress your audience/rater in a bad way.

And lastly, USE PERIOD.

作者: gtjohn 时间: 2010-7-17 02:47:20

先占个座，太累了，明天再看。有空互改下我这篇，也是想有些新意。不知道思路行不行

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1122817-1-1.html

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-7-17 08:11:35

本帖最后由 doraliu 于 2010-7-17 08:29 编辑

成天说理太闷啊，想试试换种写法，你的意见很中肯，相当受教啊，谢谢！！努力改过~~~~v 3# lingli_xiaoai

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-7-17 08:19:32

本帖最后由 doraliu 于 2010-7-17 08:25 编辑

“it sounds to me like you dont know what to be written for an issue, how to use examples and you dont know how to reason...”
“i may hurt u.......blabala...."

哪那么容易就hurt了，您能看帖已经非常不容易了:-) but honestly....if u said the artical showed no manipulation of reasoning.....instead of u dont know how to reason..............

i will be happy :-)

4# hyacinth

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-7-17 08:26:53

晚点来改:-)
5# gtjohn

作者: hyacinth 时间: 2010-7-17 08:52:38

7# doraliu

ok... point taken... : ))

btw, i just feel like Americans are really conservative when it comes to writing, if you wrote something like this, it will hurt your chance to get a score you deserve...

and from my experience, they will respect your opinion if you make a GOOD point... even if they dont agree with you.

When I took a writing class last term, it came as surprise to me that most american kids in my writing class dont buy climate change, which is really shocking. but when we were group reviewing each other's paper, they would tell me which points are good and which points I should work on...

so... >_<

try to be more conventional... convention does not necessarily mean cliche... ; p

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-7-17 10:30:20

9# hyacinth

呵呵，是的，谢谢，那么达人看看这篇https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1123972-1-1.html

我应该这样写是吗？我是说逻辑上:-)

谢谢！！！

作者: doraliu 时间: 2010-12-30 12:28:30

4# hyacinth

突然发现版主说的非常有理。。。。。。而且文章的缺点。。。。不仅仅表现了文章的缺点。。。

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)